Published: Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 5:55 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 5:55 p.m.

Facts

THE BALLOT QUESTION

Venice proposed charter amendment question:

"The mayor and councilmembers are currently eligible to participate in the city's group insurance program with subsidized premiums from the city. Should the mayor and councilmembers remain eligible to participate in the city's group insurance program and effective January 1, 2012 be required to pay the fully funded rate for their health insurance coverage without subsidized premiums from the city?"

A YES vote means that beginning Jan. 1, 2012, city council members would be allowed to participate in the city's health insurance program by paying the entire premium amount with no subsidy from the city.

A NO vote means that beginning Dec. 1, 2011, council members would no longer be eligible to participate in the city's health insurance coverage. COBRA rates, as required by law, would be available to them for 18 months at a cost to the participants of the full premium rate plus 2 percent for administration.

What seemed to be an easy question and a way to put an end to the controversy surrounding council members' $10-a-month health insurance perk has turned into confusion as voters go to the polls.

The 150-word referendum asks voters to choose "yes" if council members should be allowed to participate in the city's health insurance at the full rate.

A "no" vote indicates elected officials should no longer be eligible and instead should buy it on their own.

No matter how residents vote, elected officials will face sharply higher insurance rates beginning in January. That is because without a city subsidy, a council member's rate will soar from $10 a month to about $500. For those with family coverage, it will go from about $250 to $1,400. A no vote means eligibility for city insurance for 18 months at slightly more than the "yes" vote rate.

By city charter, only voters can increase or decrease council compensation, but some residents argue that the ballot language decreases council benefits no matter how the votes are tallied.

"I am still puzzled," said Tom Brener, a resident in an email to city officials. "A yes vote seems legal, as the referendum would pass and voters would have instituted a change, but with a NO vote, the referendum would fail, and yet the benefit would be removed by "default."

City Attorney Bob Anderson said voters are choosing access to city coverage and either decision would be the result of the referendum vote.

The ballot confusion is just the latest twist on how council members ended up getting the insurance perk and the convoluted path the issue has taken on its way to possibly being eliminated.

City officials say elected officials have been receiving free health insurance for decades, but no one knows when it started.

A change in policies in 2003 enabled some to take their "pre-retirement" rate into retirement, in effect giving some officials free insurance for life.

When the issue came to light a few years ago, public criticism and a strained city budget prompted the council to take a look at eliminating the perk.

Anderson advised the council they could not eliminate the benefit or require higher contributions because compensation changes have to be voted on by residents.

So under Mayor Ed Martin, the board changed the employee handbook, making elected officials "employees."

Because the council gets paid about $10,000, that put them in the lowest-paid-city-employee category; those employees only have to pay $10 monthly for health insurance.

It ended "free-for-life" but had unintended consequences. One candidate for office dropped out of the race because he said as an "employee" he would lose retirement insurance.

Several elected officials found themselves forced into the city plan for similar reasons.

Council member Emilio Carlesimo, elected in 2009 on a pledge to get rid of the insurance perk, could not get his colleagues to agree to putting it to a referendum earlier this year, and started a signature campaign to force it on the ballot.

The council formed a charter review board to look at benefits and other issues.

The board recommended a few months ago that the council members receive a pay increase of about $500 a month; that they have to pay the full rate for health insurance; and that the issues be coupled on the ballot. The intent was to compensate the council in exchange for dropping the subsidy.

Carlesimo, meanwhile, dropped the signature drive.

Council members, fresh from cutting $3 million out of the budget, did not think they should ask voters for a pay raise, so they voted to "decouple" the issues, leaving the pay raise question off the ballot.

That leaves voters on Tuesday to choose fully funded insurance or no insurance at all.

<p><em>VENICE</em> - Should elected officials continue receiving cheap health insurance?</p><p>What seemed to be an easy question and a way to put an end to the controversy surrounding council members' $10-a-month health insurance perk has turned into confusion as voters go to the polls.</p><p>The 150-word referendum asks voters to choose "yes" if council members should be allowed to participate in the city's health insurance at the full rate. </p><p>A "no" vote indicates elected officials should no longer be eligible and instead should buy it on their own.</p><p>No matter how residents vote, elected officials will face sharply higher insurance rates beginning in January. That is because without a city subsidy, a council member's rate will soar from $10 a month to about $500. For those with family coverage, it will go from about $250 to $1,400. A no vote means eligibility for city insurance for 18 months at slightly more than the "yes" vote rate.</p><p>By city charter, only voters can increase or decrease council compensation, but some residents argue that the ballot language decreases council benefits no matter how the votes are tallied.</p><p>"I am still puzzled," said Tom Brener, a resident in an email to city officials. "A yes vote seems legal, as the referendum would pass and voters would have instituted a change, but with a NO vote, the referendum would fail, and yet the benefit would be removed by "default."</p><p>City Attorney Bob Anderson said voters are choosing access to city coverage and either decision would be the result of the referendum vote.</p><p>The ballot confusion is just the latest twist on how council members ended up getting the insurance perk and the convoluted path the issue has taken on its way to possibly being eliminated.</p><p>City officials say elected officials have been receiving free health insurance for decades, but no one knows when it started. </p><p>A change in policies in 2003 enabled some to take their "pre-retirement" rate into retirement, in effect giving some officials free insurance for life.</p><p>When the issue came to light a few years ago, public criticism and a strained city budget prompted the council to take a look at eliminating the perk. </p><p>Anderson advised the council they could not eliminate the benefit or require higher contributions because compensation changes have to be voted on by residents.</p><p>So under Mayor Ed Martin, the board changed the employee handbook, making elected officials "employees."</p><p>Because the council gets paid about $10,000, that put them in the lowest-paid-city-employee category; those employees only have to pay $10 monthly for health insurance.</p><p>It ended "free-for-life" but had unintended consequences. One candidate for office dropped out of the race because he said as an "employee" he would lose retirement insurance.</p><p>Several elected officials found themselves forced into the city plan for similar reasons. </p><p>Council member Emilio Carlesimo, elected in 2009 on a pledge to get rid of the insurance perk, could not get his colleagues to agree to putting it to a referendum earlier this year, and started a signature campaign to force it on the ballot.</p><p>The council formed a charter review board to look at benefits and other issues. </p><p>The board recommended a few months ago that the council members receive a pay increase of about $500 a month; that they have to pay the full rate for health insurance; and that the issues be coupled on the ballot. The intent was to compensate the council in exchange for dropping the subsidy. </p><p>Carlesimo, meanwhile, dropped the signature drive.</p><p>Council members, fresh from cutting $3 million out of the budget, did not think they should ask voters for a pay raise, so they voted to "decouple" the issues, leaving the pay raise question off the ballot.</p><p>That leaves voters on Tuesday to choose fully funded insurance or no insurance at all.</p>